Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Pakistan Lifts Ban After Facebook Deletes Offending Page

StoneLion posted more than 4 years ago | from the never-again-until-the-next-time dept.

Censorship 677

crimeandpunishment writes "Facebook is back in Pakistan today. A day after Bangladesh banned the social networking site, the Pakistani government lifted its ban after officials from Facebook apologized for the 'Everybody Draw Mohammed Day' page and removed it from the site. The page caused outrage and protests among Pakistan's Muslim population, and led to the ban two weeks ago. A spokesman for Pakistan's office of information technology said Facebook assured the government 'nothing of this sort will happen in the future.'"

cancel ×

677 comments

Face palm (1)

PilogBue (1416999) | more than 4 years ago | (#32406824)

I'm doing it.

Re:Face palm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32406862)

No kidding. If I knew that day was going on, I might even have logged onto facebook to participate.

Re:Face palm (4, Informative)

PilogBue (1416999) | more than 4 years ago | (#32406954)

There were a lot of submissions, and Muhammad had taken an unimaginable amount of forms. Although, quite a few took the oppurtunity to show their hatred towards muslims in general (nukes at the Kaba etc.), which made the impact of the images sort of embarrasing after a while. Another trend also occured, namely death threats. They seemed to flourish, judging by the amount of print screens that were posted. I think they actually ended up making a seperate death threat gallery. In my oppionion that just makes this caving even worse. Yet another victory for the unevolved.

Re:Face palm (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32407022)

ah! we need no stinking opposing thumb!

Beard stroke (3, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#32406890)

I'm turning my face into a caricature of the Prophet.

pathetic (5, Insightful)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | more than 4 years ago | (#32406840)

way to cave face book. please move your hq to islamabad.

nothing of this sort will happen again? (3, Informative)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407000)

Not even something like this? [facebook.com] and that's just with a 10 second search.

Re:pathetic (5, Insightful)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407002)

Exactly.

We just became a little more Islamic fundamentalist by giving into their way of life, rather than standing up for freedom.

Facebook, you suck.

I'm so tired of people bending over for Muslims and their way of life. Muslims will NEVER give us an inch, so we we give up our freedom? What a shit deal.

Re:pathetic (2, Insightful)

cduffy (652) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407082)

sed -i \
  -e s/Islamic// \
  -e 's/[.] Muslims/. Fundamentalists/' \
  -e s/Muslims/fundamentalists/

With those replacements made, is the position espoused something you would support? Why or why not?

Re:pathetic (2, Insightful)

siride (974284) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407146)

For me, yes. Any fundamentalist ideology is extremely dangerous to peace and sanity.

Re:pathetic (3, Insightful)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407212)

Of course. However the discussion here is decidedly about MUSLIMS. Does that make you uncomfortable? Why or why not?

8===> O:

^^ That is Muhammad sucking cock. Does that make you uncomfortable? Why or why not?

I could go on all day you want to be troll.

Re:pathetic (0, Flamebait)

dave420 (699308) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407086)

Get a grip - your xenophobia is showing. Facebook are merely being capitalist. They want to serve ads. Entire countries blocking their service will affect their bottom line. And, also, when you make massive generalisations like you did, you look like an uneducated redneck twat.

Re:pathetic (3, Insightful)

MadKeithV (102058) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407202)

Now wouldn't it be fun if the US government blocked Facebook now because they are offended by the violation of the right to free speech....

Re:pathetic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32407268)

There is no right to free speech on private property. It only restricts the government, not private individuals.

Facebook != the internet.

Re:pathetic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32407216)

Dhimmitude, regardless of the reasoning, is wrong and only invites more religious censorship.

Your childish ad hominems won't change that.

Re:pathetic (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407226)

Yes, because Pakistan is, I'm sure, a major source of ad conversions...

Score (0, Flamebait)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407044)

violence versus free speech

violence : 1
free speech : 0

Let the message to everyone be clear : threaten (credibly) murder, mayhem and violence if anything on facebook (such as gays, Jews, ... what have you) offends you. The net results, media, lefties worldwide will support you for being victimized (presumably by those evil gays and Jews you want to kill ?)

Proxy (1)

xrex (130996) | more than 4 years ago | (#32406842)

So do anyone know about an Bangladesh proxy server ?

Their own Petard... (1)

elewton (1743958) | more than 4 years ago | (#32406850)

May Facebook continue to mess up for long enough that an open alternative can prosper.

Re:Their own Petard... (1)

theY4Kman (1519023) | more than 4 years ago | (#32406878)

So... forever?

Another point of view (0, Troll)

sijucm (688348) | more than 4 years ago | (#32406860)

Just another point of view, NO, I do not support the facebook ban.

Are we hypocrites who are not trying to understand the other view point? What if we do not have a lot of respect(some call it tolerance) for our own religion and belief (for those who have it) that we let our 'God'(son) called 'zombie jew'? What right do we have to criticize someone who has a lot of respect and (blind) belief for what he believes in? For a minute think that you totally, fully, blindly believe in Quran and that God/Allah is going to fry your ass if you do not follow his words, won't you do exactly try to do everything(blow yourself up) to prevent it? My point is that all this is about the amount of faith you have in God, what if *we* do not have it.

Christianity also was practiced (although I believe it was not what Jesus wanted) with a very tight interpretation, it is very very difficult to say it was wrong and what we do is right. Maybe we have all gone mad and away from God, but we also need to check whether *we* are the hypocrites and intolerant ones who cannot accept someone who wants to practice his religion strictly and work towards his eternal life (and blow himself and others up for that goal in this life).

May Allah save us all (why not?)

Re:Another point of view (1)

theY4Kman (1519023) | more than 4 years ago | (#32406910)

Anybody can practice whatever they want, as long as they don't try to kill me in the process. But these radical Muslims have been doing just that.

Re:Another point of view (4, Insightful)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 4 years ago | (#32406988)

Pretty poorly, considering that you're still alive to post that....

The issue is that the radical Muslims are just that, radicals. just like the radical Christians, and the radical Jews, etc. hell, there's even been radical Buddhists doing this sort of thing in Sri Lanka. the problem is that we only hear about the radical nutjobs out there... but there's a billion Muslims on the planet. if they were *really* as bad as fox "news" would have you believe, we'd have turned this place into a self-illuminating glass-floored parking lot by now.

Or to turn the tables another way, imagine if the only Christians you ever heard about were people like David Koresh?

Re:Another point of view (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32406924)

Who says that God does not enjoy being abused? Perhaps It created us because It wanted more blasphemy.

Re:Another point of view (5, Insightful)

rotide (1015173) | more than 4 years ago | (#32406950)

Fine, if that's the way you want to go with it, lets all be "tolerant" of what _any_ other group doesn't like.

I mean, if Russia doesn't like something, lets get rid of whatever it is they don't like. If France doesn't like the anti-France jokes, lets scrub sites of anything resembling it. If MADD doesn't like alcohol references, lets be "tolerant" and get rid of those as well, oh hey, 2 birds there. Oh there are a lot of groups who are offended by the idea of evolution, scrub that. Oh hey, there are other groups who only believe we come from aliens, etc. Scrub anything anti-alien created/derived.

It's a slippery slope. If you don't want to read something, click away, or hey, just don't click it in the first place. It's not _my_ problem if you don't like something that is legal in my country where my post is located.

Huge slippery slope. Cave to one groups demands and now you've set precedent. Now the next group sees that you cave to demands, so lets all demand what we want. I mean, hell, we can't police what we view ourselves so fuck it, lets have everyone self censor so I can live happily the way I want to. Fuck the rest of the world and their ideas!

Re:Another point of view (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407128)

We're talking about a company, not the government. Companies want to make money. Being banned in several entire countries generally tends to hurt profits, and so they try to do what they can to alleviate such concerns. So the options are to either have a group that achieves nothing but telling people who don't know much about Islam what they already (incorrectly) think they know, and losing money in the process, or simply removing the group (pissing off the rednecks who use it), and keeping all the profit.

You can leave your preachy-ness at the door. Facebook is a company and can do what the fuck they want.

Re:Another point of view (2, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407162)

And if I find censorship offensive, then am I entitled to the same understanding, and to have everything that censors someone else's view removed? The problem with the grandparent's position is that it doesn't work both ways. You can't make both sides happy. Given the choice, I'd rather back the side that accepts the existence of the other side.

Re:Another point of view (1)

KGBear (71109) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407266)

I mean, hell, we can't police what we view ourselves so fuck it, lets have everyone self censor so I can live happily the way I want to.

You mean, kinda like the US is doing trying to change everybody's copyright laws so that the police of all countries will do the MPAA/RIAA's dirty work for them?

Re:Another point of view (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32406962)

I'm with Bill Maher on this one. Religious thought, in all it's forms, is a cancer of our civilisation. If you can't reason with something which threatens you, and you can't avoid it doing damage to you, then it needs to be exterminated.

Re:Another point of view (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32407012)

If you can't reason with something which threatens you, and you can't avoid it doing damage to you, then it needs to be exterminated.

You're talking about religious people, aren't you?

Re:Another point of view (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32407084)

Religious people who try to exterminate those who don't follow that religion? Yes. Otherwise, live and let live.

Re:Another point of view (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32407008)

We have the right to criticize, offend, and ridicule anything we damn well please. This is not "merely" the practice of religion. It's an attempt to dominate others... It's time to lay down the law and shut these people up. Exterminate them all if that's what it takes like the Nazis that they are. Fuck them! and the Mohammad they rode in on. Cocksuckers!

Re:Another point of view (4, Insightful)

magarity (164372) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407040)

For a minute think that you totally, fully, blindly believe in Quran and that God/Allah is going to fry your ass if you do not follow his words
 
That's all very fine except no one can quote the passage dictating no pictures be made of Mr. Mohammad. The best they can do is make a tortured trail of logic between a prohibition against worshiping images leads to no pictures. If you think the people making cartoons on facebook and Dutch newspapers are in danger of worshiping them then you're sadly mistaken of the entire point of drawing them. Such intolerance is in need of correction, not ever more unilateral tolerance.

Re:Another point of view (3, Informative)

chill (34294) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407042)

In the U.S. the laws of Man far outrank the laws of Religion. The U.S. Constitution, Article VI states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwith-standing.

In simple terms, this means in the U.S. the Constitution outranks the Bible, Koran, Vedas, Egyptian Book of the Dead and any other religious law or rule. And, in the U.S., Freedom of Speech includes the right to offend and blasphemy. It may be rude, but it is there to prevent the slippery slope of censorship, lesse majesty and, essentially, newspeek. Being occasionally offended is a small price to pay to not having to worry about being thrown in jail for calling the President/King/Mullah an dick, and the government a corrupt bunch of money-grubbing assholes.

Re:Another point of view (4, Informative)

siride (974284) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407180)

Facebook is a company, not the government. So whatever the constitution says about free speech is irrelevant.

Re:Another point of view (2, Insightful)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407200)

In the U.S. the laws of Man far outrank the laws of Religion. The U.S. Constitution, Article VI states:

Except in this case we see that they don't. Facebook is trying to become the default method of communication for everybody and doing pretty well with many. If they allow this level of censorship that becomes very serious. Ideas, such as how to cure breast cancer, may not be allowed because some American fundamentalists don't like breasts.

We really really need to get a decent decentralised alternative to Facebook up as soon as possible and get people migrated away. If we don't there are going to be reall problems with practical freedom of speech in future.

Re:Another point of view (5, Insightful)

poptones (653660) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407056)

We have every right to criticize anyone we want. It saddens me the only free venues of the internet are falling by the wayside to be replaced by corporate websites where shit like this runs rampant.

OH NO! Hey look everyone, it's MUHAMMED waving at us!

          0/
         /|
         / \

We're gonna get banned!

Re:Another point of view (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32407066)

Censorship is never good. Get that through your head and you'll be OK. If you don't want to see cartoons of a prophet - cool. Don't look at them. That doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to see said cartoons. If I don't want to see {insert random thing here}, then I won't look at that.

Re:Another point of view (5, Insightful)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407218)

We understand the other point of view. The point is in a free society, you do not have the right to not be offended.

so, the other point of view does not matter.

Every fairy tale god has taken its share of criticism, and ridicule throught out history, and in our so called free society, we are supposed to value the idea of freedom of expression.

Instead here we are selling out our constitution, our struggle from historical oppression of thought and ideas.... only to find ourselves giving all of it away to make Muslims happy? Fuck them and their selfishness. We make fun of Jesus Christ every fucking day here in America, in music, arts etc. We also praise him every day in music and arts... and the same for Muhammad. If they dont like it... They can stay out of our way of life. They can STOP watching and listening to our are. And they can stay the fuck off our websites.

Its all nice to "think of their side of things"... but their side of things beats women, forces them to wear burkas, and kills anyone who questions their god. WE already thought about their side of things... and it's fucking stupid.

Here we are giving in to it?

Fuck us. We're pathetic cowards.

Re:Another point of view (2, Insightful)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407282)

In my opinion people have the right to believe whatever they want and practice whatever they want. People also have the right to ridicule and mock whomever they want. These rights are not absolute, however. Your right to worship may not impinge on my rights to free speech, or any other rights that an individual has in a free, civilized society. Go to you church/mosque/temple and pray - fine. Getting in my face about accepting Allah/Jesus, etc - you're approaching a line. Threatening others with violence or death because they do not believe in your religion and they mock it? - a line has been crossed and this behavior has no place in any society I want to live in.

Personally I think anyone who believes that some supernatural being that lives in the sky is responsible fo thing that happen is an utter idiot, but that's my opinion - I respect your right to practice your religion, but if you tell me I cannot do something because it is against your religion I'm going to do it, especially if there is an implied threat on your part.

The biggest problem is, how do you argue with someone who "knows" they are right based on blind faith? If a rational person believes them self to be right based on evidence, if you show evidence to the contrary, they will generally adjust their position or at least debate the merits of the argument you have presented. How do you debate the question of, for example, whether or not Muhammed was in fact a pedophile with a group of people that have blind faith in their prophet? You can't without risking that some radical faction will threaten to injure or kill you, and that is unacceptable. Where religious beliefe run afoul of established secular law, the law does, and should, trump the religious beliefs and there should be no exceptions. Unfortunately we see exceptions based on religious beliefs creeping into our laws, the recent healthcare law is the most recent example: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20090806.html [findlaw.com] .

Short version: do whatever you want, but if in practicing your religion you step on my rights or somehow get you preferential treatment from the government, fuck off.

come on (1)

cntThnkofAname (1572875) | more than 4 years ago | (#32406872)

Don't tell me you guys didn't see this coming...

They won (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32406896)

No more beating around the bush about this one.

They win, either you don't draw towelie or you get punished.

Why, why, why? (3, Interesting)

DogDude (805747) | more than 4 years ago | (#32406898)

Why do all of you Facebook bitches still use it? It's like Facebook is an abusive husband, and y'all just keep going back again and again.

Re:Why, why, why? (4, Funny)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407114)

"It's like Facebook is an abusive husband, and y'all just keep going back again and again."

They really love me and the sex is great, you insensitive clod!

Because it lets me get back in touch (1)

NotSoHeavyD3 (1400425) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407314)

With my high school classmates but unlike classmates doesn't charge to use it. Also since it's the most popular one of these sites people I fell out of touch with in high school are more likely to use it than anything else.

Way to set a precedent for caving to zealots. (1)

grub (11606) | more than 4 years ago | (#32406900)


Rather than knuckle under to anti-free speech zealots, they should have let the people in Pakistan raise enough of a stink about it to the government and (hopefully) have the block lifted.

Does any site really need delusional whiners on it?

Re:Way to set a precedent for caving to zealots. (0, Troll)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32406938)

No more than we need to keep people from posting pro-Klan materials on the site. Ultimately, people weren't doing it as free speech, they were doing it out of ignorance for Islam. Free speech has never been about saying whatever you could to offend other people. It's been to assure the people of the ability to speak out about meaningful things. This isn't any different than bans on homophobic, racist, antisemitic posts that most websites of that sort have.

Re:Way to set a precedent for caving to zealots. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32407024)

Yes, it IS different from bans on homophobic and racist material because drawing a picture of Mohammed is not in itself derogatory or hateful! How the fuck did that basic fact *whoosh* you?

It is absolutely an issue of free speech. The bullies are the ones insisting on telling you what you can and can't do.

Re:Way to set a precedent for caving to zealots. (0, Troll)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407156)

Ultimately is is both derogatory and hateful. It's a simple matter of respect, the fact is that there's a lot of bigots out there to get their lulz by insulting Islam. Ignorant statements that something which offends even moderate Muslims isn't derogatory is really beyond explanation.

More than that it's hardly an effective way of bringing the extremists into check. It just gives more ammunition for them when they say that we don't get or respect Islam.

Re:Way to set a precedent for caving to zealots. (4, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407198)

You know, I really don't have a problem with people posting pro-Klan stuff online, especially somewhere like FaceBook where it's linked to their real name. Makes it much easier to avoid having anything to do with them. If you think that people of a certain skin colour are inferior, then I'd much rather that you said it in public and self-designated as an idiot than that you kept it private.

I have deactivating my facebook account in respons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32406904)

Nothing angers me more than people caving to intimidation like this.

Re:I have deactivating my facebook account in resp (3, Insightful)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407238)

I have deactivating my facebook account in respons[e]

Try to do it together with a large group of friends. Try to find a decent alternative they can all move to together. If you don't do that then you may eventually find yourself moving back just because your friends are still in Facebook and you feel you need it.

The right thing? No. Profit! (5, Insightful)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 4 years ago | (#32406906)

So as soon as the furor has died down, and the controversy is no longer driving as much traffic to Facebook as Pakistan's ban reduced it, Facebook decides to "do the right thing". The right thing, that is, to make the numbers.
I rather enjoyed deluding myself that Facebook was standing up for free expression, denouncing idiotic religious extremism, etc., but I now realize the folly of that thinking. Thank you, Facebook, for restoring my faith in the utterly amoral nature of American business.

Re:The right thing? No. Profit! (3, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407026)

So as soon as the furor has died down, and the controversy is no longer driving as much traffic to Facebook as Pakistan's ban reduced it, Facebook decides to "do the right thing". The right thing, that is, to make the numbers.

Yes, Facebook sure has done all they can to eliminate the group. [facebook.com]

I rather enjoyed deluding myself that Facebook was standing up for free expression, denouncing idiotic religious extremism, etc., but I now realize the folly of that thinking.

That was pretty silly given that Facebook's founder thinks his users are idiots.

Thank you, Facebook, for restoring my faith in the utterly amoral nature of American business.

Maybe Zuckerberg thinks it's holy to make money.

Re:The right thing? No. Profit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32407126)

That was pretty silly given that Facebook's founder thinks his users are idiots.

To be fair, he is right.

Re:The right thing? No. Profit! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32407150)

Maybe Zuckerberg thinks it's holy to make money.

Maybe? He's a JEW!

Re:The right thing? No. Profit! (4, Insightful)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407032)

If a newspaper in Denmark, a prominently non-muslim country, can't do the same without being subjected with worldwide cannon fire from muslim authorities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy), what are the chances that a website in a muslim country would fare any better?

Re:The right thing? No. Profit! (1)

Blue Stone (582566) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407068)

Maybe we need to create a religion where Facebook is categorised as an abomination against god, humanity and an insult to all right thinking people (I know, it's a stretch) and have Facebook take itself off the internet!

Neville Chamberlain (5, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 4 years ago | (#32406928)

The world is full of these types now in our age of appeasement. Another repeat of history is almost due. And after such a short time, while people are still alive from the last time this happened. UGH! Sickening!

Re: Neville Chamberlain (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407134)

The world is full of these types now in our age of appeasement.

The world has always been full of these types. There are lots of people in the USA who think you should go to prison if you burn a US flag.

Re: Neville Chamberlain (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407252)

They can blab all they want.. It's much worse when people actually cave in to this shit... We are so fucked..

Re:Neville Chamberlain (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407272)

Nuremburg conditioned the world to believe there are no bad religions (as if someone trying to kill you indicated virtue).

There can be bad political beliefs, but it is taboo to understand that superstition IS a political belief. Most superstitionists buy in to the lie because to admit it is embarrassing.

Godwin time:

"Nazism isn't bad, but there are bad Nazis." Ridiculous except to apologists.

Islam is in many ways, particularly womens rights, worse than either Nazism or Stalinism or Maoism, but it is Flamebait to criticize religion.

WHY should anyone respect superstition? I don't.

The thing to do is prepare for war while pretending something else, build alliances with modern, logical governments (China, etc) and wait for opportunity. Agitate against Islam as you would any other toxic nonsense, and rely on the Jihadists to react badly. RELIGIONISTS CAN BE MANIPULATED BY THE DICTATES OF THEIR SUPERSTITION. This is a permanent vulnerability, use it.

My version of Mohammed (1)

Valpis (6866) | more than 4 years ago | (#32406936)

If noone ever has been allowed to porttrait Mohammed, how can they tell that it is Mohammed they have portraited? This is my painting of Mohammed "|" , is this enough for being banned?
I could understand that they would get upset if he was porttraited in a less flattening situation, as christians would have some problems with Jesus being dressed up as something visiting the blue oyster bar

Re:My version of Mohammed (2, Interesting)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407166)

There are older depictions of Mo [wikipedia.org] . The ban on any images is in the Hadith, but not the Qur'an IIRC. IANAMS (I am not a Muslim scholar).

What are the rules? (3, Interesting)

jmichaelg (148257) | more than 4 years ago | (#32406946)

First Facebook redefines its privacy policies making private data public.

Now it yanks a political expression page because the page offends another group.

One might be inclined to think Facebook Zucks.

Re:What are the rules? (4, Informative)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407204)

Well, except on May 24th the creators of the "Everybody Draw Mohammad" page deleted it themselves. Note that although the Slashdot summary says Facebook deleted it, the actual article only quotes FB as saying "The page has been removed" without ever declaring that they did so themselves. The stated reason is it became a 24/7 job to delete the endless flood of people calling for genocide against the muslims, and people posting gay porn of Obama and Muhammad (roughly 90% of the image submissions), or posting Muslims being disemboweled by assorted Aryan Americans. (I'm sure they were also tired of doing the converse). Naturally, pulling the page caused those same people to turn their hatred on the creators, calling them secret Muslim terrorists, and expressing murderous outrage that they ever dared to censor in the first place.

It's draw Mohammad MONTH now! (5, Insightful)

RyanFenton (230700) | more than 4 years ago | (#32406952)

Yeah! Selective censorship fixes EVERYTHING! Just cave into the most aggressive believers, and you tend to generate more aggressive believers.

So, what happens when 1000+ pages are now created, celebrating Draw Mohammad Month, Draw Mohammad Brunch, Draw Mohammad Restaurant, Finger-Paint Mohammad with your Toes, Bake a Mohammad Cake, etc., etc.

If you ban all mockery of religion that gets offended, then many religions will suddenly decide to get offended - and many groups will decide to define themselves as religion in order to get the censorship ability.

There's always going to be overlap between validly interpreting religion as an outsider, and taking an insulting view from the perspective of an insider - making that perceived insult a crime is equivalent to making observations as an outsider a crime. I am not prohibited from drawing Mohammad. Creating a system where I am prohibited is saying my view isn't as valid as the aggressive believers in that space.

Ryan Fenton

Re:It's draw Mohammad MONTH now! (2, Insightful)

dosun88888 (265953) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407154)

[i]If you ban all mockery of religion that gets offended, then many religions will suddenly decide to get offended - and many groups will decide to define themselves as religion in order to get the censorship ability.[/i]

We kinda missed that boat, though. To get people to give a crap what your group says about anything you need two things.

1) Ability to do a lot of damage.

2) A lot of followers.

3) The reputation of being completely unreasonable.

If you're just a psycho with a few people in the club they'll take you out like you're a Branch Davidian. If muslims never killed people or hijacked planes nobody would give a crap about them. To be fair, if the christians never had the crusades nobody would give a crap about them either. If we could reason with them we'd try that every time instead of moving on to the "delete offensive content" step. I suppose, though, that if those in question were reasonable they wouldn't be very religious.

Re:It's draw Mohammad MONTH now! (1)

irid77 (1539905) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407234)

If you ban all mockery of religion that gets offended, then many religions will suddenly decide to get offended - and many groups will decide to define themselves as religion in order to get the censorship ability.

This could happen in principle, but it won't because nobody else is threatening the mockers with violence. Only radical Islam takes it this far, so they get special treatment.

It should now be called Hatebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32406956)

If Facebook is going to appease Muslim religious extremists (and their dictatorship governments), then shouldn't freedom lovers ban/boycott Facebook, and will Facebook apologize to people who love Freedom and hate religious oppression?

primitive bunch of screwheads (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32406978)

fuck those over sensitive whiny fuck-ups. Its ok to gang-rape the daughter of another tribe because the tribe owes you a debt, but its not ok to draw a political picture.

hey pakistan:

1. Get a fucking education you illiterate fucks

2. Stop the 200 generation cycle of incest (arranged marriages with your first cousins you sick fucks)

EVERYONE should protest and put ridiculous drawings of Mohammad taking it in the ass by a camel

Re:primitive bunch of screwheads (0, Flamebait)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407308)

Pretty much on-target, and why an Indo-Pak nuclear war would be a beautiful thing. (India has the resources to recover, and the people to put boots on the ground to finish off their enemy Pakistan.)

So what have we learned? (1)

Puls4r (724907) | more than 4 years ago | (#32406980)

#1 Every network, and every webpage, from facebook to the smallest server and forum is owned by someone. #2 Because every medium of expression on the internet is owned by someone, there isn't one of them that is truly free. #3 Freedom of expression on the internet is a myth. If it offends someone, and that person can make a stink about it, your 'free speech' can and will be removed. You have no freedom of speech on the internet. Unless you're comment on government forums. Which are also moderated heavily.

Re:So what have we learned? (1)

cpghost (719344) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407248)

Nothing prevents you from operating your own website, on your own network, where you're free to write what you want. Sure, if your opponents are as resourceful as governments or megacorps (think: IP cartells), you may still have a little problem...

Re:So what have we learned? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407262)

#2 does not logically follow from #1. You only don't have free speech if the person who owns the medium of expression is not you. You think Rupert Murdoch has no freedom of expression on the Internet? If you decide that opting in to a service like FaceBook where someone else owns everything is worth the very small saving over running your own server, you don't get to complain when you find out that free as in beer isn't the same as free as in speech.

BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT FREE SPEECH (4, Funny)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 4 years ago | (#32406986)

SLAY THOSE WHO INSULT FREE SPEECH

Still, I'm sure that successful troll was quite successful.

yeah lets point at them (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32406990)

while Israel has just boarded a flotilla of ships killing 19 people in the process for importing wheelchairs, cement and wood

banning a webpage seems a rather trivial response in comparison

Re: yeah lets point at them (4, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407046)

while Israel has just boarded a flotilla of ships killing 19 people in the process for importing wheelchairs, cement and wood banning a webpage seems a rather trivial response in comparison

A lot of news gets ignored. A couple of weeks ago some guy firebombed a mosque in Florida while people were worshipping there. Not a peep on the news. A few days later two white supremacists shot a couple of cops who pulled them over for something, then got themselves shot in a firefight. Not a peep on the news.

Meanwhile, CNN is interviewing American Idol winners...

Re:yeah lets point at them (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32407116)

How about the fact that they wouldnt let isreal check to make sure they wernt bringing in weapons?
Isreal said they would give the stuff to the palestines.
Perhaps if the gaza strip wasnt run by a KNOWN TERRORIST ORGANIZATION.. THAT WANTS TO WIPE ISREAL OFF THE MAP. The arabs wouldnt have a problem getting their wheelchairs.

It was ten dead anyways, and ive seen photage of the isrealis bording the boats (which i firmly believe they had a right too) and being attacked. When your attacked, you defend yourself.

And anyways it had NOTHING to do with facebook.

Bans (3, Insightful)

JavaBear (9872) | more than 4 years ago | (#32406994)

Religious views offend me, lets petition Facebook to remove all pages with offensive content!
Why not? They removed pages that were supporting a political and religious viewpoint (free speech and cartoons) to cater for the views and feelings a single groups of people. What about my views, and those of everybody else?

New rule for Facebook, if they want to play that game, is that in order to be perceived as being fair, they must necessarily remove any content that is offensive to some group or people.

Re:Bans (1)

shabtai87 (1715592) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407222)

But that means removing facebook almost completely.... but wait, that's a good thing, so yes, they should be fair!

Re:Bans (1)

sadler121 (735320) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407258)

A petition will not do a damn thing. You're going to have to threaten to kill people if your demands are not met.

Well then (1)

networkconsultant (1224452) | more than 4 years ago | (#32406998)

I'd like to think that the issue with Pakistan is education; sadly there's a massive lack of it as a result they all turn to the Quoran instead of the littany of avaailble good books; as a result women still get stoned and the taliban still own warizistan; the Euphrates vally is the cradle of civilization, Pakistan owes humanity the public and unbiased education it deserves; sadly as a Muslim state this will never happen and the rape and tourture of young women in the name of Allah will continue until such time as the UN get's it's head out of the sand. Pakistan is a rouge state and needs to be controlled if not by it's on elected officials than by a Christan pro-feminist dictator.

Sounds like a challenge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32407030)

It is stupid of them to say that it won't happen again. That is simply not possible to guarantee without reviewing EVERYTHING that goes up on the site. I'd guess that some people will take this as a challenge to see if they can get FB blocked again. It would be pretty simple...

1) Create "Mohammed Eats Babies" page, but don't advertise it
2) Send link to the Pakistan IT ministry
3) Publicize page on 4chan, etc
4) ???
5) PROPHET!

Hard part is getting the timing right - you want to make sure the page looks popular when the Pakistan government sees it, but also not popular enough for FB to already know about it. Also they probably have some censors to automatically flag this sort of thing for review, so you might need to work around that.

Now you know how to delete your Facebook profile (5, Funny)

jbssm (961115) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407060)

For all of us that wanted to delete our FaceBook profile, but couldn't because FaceBook hides it and plays around with the options so that we cannot do it. Well, now you have the answer. Just put some pictures of Mohamed sodomizing some sheep or similar and voilá.

Perhaps thins is one of this new privacy options Zuckberg talks about. "It's now possible to delete your own personal page." (Big cheers from the public)."

Just the start (1)

Posting=!Working (197779) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407074)

They removed a page created in the US because it offended some Muslims in Pakistan? The Taliban control a large portion of Pakistan. Can I get pages in Pakistan removed because they offend me? I'll bet that there's a lot that have things way more offensive than stick figures of Jesus. Like death threats and pro-female-slavery propaganda.

Pictures of women without veils offend some Muslims too. When are they going to ban those for being offensive?

Sensitivity anyone? (2, Interesting)

NervousWreck (1399445) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407088)

Now facebook will delete every nasty post anyone has ever written about me (like the ones complaining that I don't have facebook), right? Right? ... Oh, I forgot. I am just one mostly peaceful and law-abiding citizen, not thousands of armed and murderous thugs so I don't rate much sensitivity.

Mod parent up! (1)

ProteusQ (665382) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407112)

Every employee at FB ought to read that post.

boycot facebook? (1)

X10 (186866) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407172)

Like an annual "boycot facebook day"?

Americans (3, Insightful)

br00tus (528477) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407190)

Americans arm and fund the Taliban and Al Qaeda to overthrow the secular Afghani government in the 1970s and 1980s. Then they invade Iraq, one of the few secular Arab countries left, whose constitution changes a country from what was nominally one following pan-Arab socialism (something it had been in the early days) to one that was officially Islamic. We keep hearing about how US intervention is against Islamic fundamentalists - yet to repeat, the US funded the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and the the Iraq invasion changed the Iraqi constitution to one stating the country was an Islamic one.

So the US is funding Israel, which just killed a number of people on a humanitarian flotilla delivering food to blockaded Gaza today, a flotilla on which there is a Jewish holocaust survivor, Nobel Peace Prize winner and various European MPs. The US grabs Iraqis off the street and puts them in Abu Ghraib, forces them to masturbate and films them doing so (besides the one tortured to death). The forced masturbation is allowed to be done, but not broadcast on US TV because our good Christian values does not allow us to see what we are doing over there or something.

So on top of all this bloodshed and mayhem the US causes in these countries, as their bodies pile up, Americans are now attacking their culture and religion. It is an attempt to dehumanize the people already being killed. If drones were not flying through Pakistan killing people, it would be one thing, but this Facebook thing is just another attack on all the blood and bodies Americans are stacking up in these countries. It has worked too - this sort of thing has stirred up fundamentalists in Pakistan, who just bombed some mosques of the moderate Ahmadis. So the usual US practice of getting rid of secular moderates and putting radical Islamists in charge is working.

continuation of that quote (2, Insightful)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407206)

I dunno what they were thinking but "Facebook assured the government 'nothing of this sort will happen in the future." actually ends in "which ensures that something of this sort WILL happen again!" Seriously, users getting pissed off at muslims (or at least some of them) and doing this sort of protest aren't going to sit down and take it when Facebook apologizes on their behalf and says it won't happen again. That seriously only encourages them to do it again and on a larger scale.

Memorial Day (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32407210)

Funny that this insult is published on Memorial Day of all days... Never Forget.... riiiiight... Facebook is downright un-American... Damn them all to hell

Lame... but perfectly acceptable. (1)

divisionbyzero (300681) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407220)

It's a private business. They need viewers. It's perfectly within their rights to censor and it makes good business sense (although I'm not sure how many ads are for Pakistani eyeballs). It just furthers their status as giant douche bags willing to sell out their user base at the drop of a hat...

Complaints (3, Insightful)

mistralol (987952) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407224)

I am sure we can all probably find something on facebook that each individual on the planet would find offensive. Why don't we all email them now and ask that they remove it?

I'm a Muslim... (5, Interesting)

Iftekhar25 (802052) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407242)

And even if I am offended (which I reserve the right to be), I don't think any of this should be happening (i.e., censorship). There has been defamatory material on the prophet for centuries, and in fact were around even during his time. This is nothing new; anyone as prominent as him had to have grown pretty thick skin to get anything done.

His followers 14 centuries on, however, can't seem to follow in his footsteps even half as much as they claim they do.

Every time something like this comes up, I try to dig a hole and disappear best I can. Yet another dysfunctional government like Bangladesh or Pakistan come up with a way to do their magical rabble-rousing and distract from the real issues at hand: economic development, education, and healthcare. All of which they are failing *miserably* at.

This is all *political*. Almost all Muslims (both in the "West" and in the "East") have no beef with anyone or anything, and just want to go ahead living their lives. These idiots in government, who can't even ensure their citizens get basic utilities like garbage collection and electricity, are spending their energy on some drawings, which is perverse on multiple levels.

The minority here is basically speaking for the majority. And honestly... the majority (like me) are looking to dig their own holes as well. We don't want to stick our heads out because we don't want the confrontation. This isn't something we particularly care about. I honest to goodness don't want to argue about the merits and demerits of my faith with some of the slashdotters on here, who are convinced that Muslims "don't belong."

But someone's gotta say it. Most of us are not like this. Most of us just want to get on with our lives. Please don't let the vocal minority dominate the debate. This is political distraction tactics and has little or nothing to do with free speech, Facebook, or the prophet.

Isn't anyone going to check the facts? (1)

DWMorse (1816016) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407256)

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/Everyone-Draw-Mohammed-day-May-20/ [facebook.com]

Oh look. NOT deleted. Doesn't anyone do their freaking homework before going off the deep end? The Facebook group appears to have never been removed or deleted.

Re:Isn't anyone going to check the facts? (1)

codepunk (167897) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407280)

Check your facts, delete your browser cache.

Re:Isn't anyone going to check the facts? (1)

PilogBue (1416999) | more than 4 years ago | (#32407310)

May fool! Haha!

'nothing of this sort will happen in the future' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32407274)

Well there's a challenge if I ever heard one. Just how close to "this sort" can happen before triggering the Facebook Bureau of Morality [facebook.com] -style censorship police?

To start, I expect a "We apologize that this picture of Mohammad would have offended you if we were allowed to show it" page, with a blank image or maybe a big question mark.

Which, of course, people will still find offensive.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...